 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Relativity Theory and Sequencelessness | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/5/2001 4:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | I have recently had several discussions with several people who are into cosmology and with two who specialize in relativity theory. I learned, among other things, that my presentation of Relativity Theology in God of the Possible was over-simplified to the point of being wrong. I depict it as merely an epistemological phenomenon (e.g. information reaching us at the speed of light) and THAT is mistaken. I agree. I recant. BUT I also walked away from the discussion MORE convinced that Relativity Theory does NOT imply that there is no absolute sequence in the cosmos.
Here's what relativity theory states: WHEN an event occurs (not just when information about an event ARRIVES) is dependent on the location and speed of the observer of the event. SO, (here's an analogy)
picture a man watching a train traveling close to the speed of light. An observer watching the train go by sees a lightening bolt strike the front end and the back end of the train simultaneously. Yet an observer in the middle of the train sees the front lightening bolt hitting before the second. THIS ISN'T just because the light from the back of the train had to travel farther, since the train had moved forward since it's being hit. No. If you had two atomic clocks placed at the front and the back of the train which registered WHEN the lightening struck, THEY WOULD GIVE DIFFERENT TIMES. Yet, to the stationary observer watching the whole scenario, the lightening struck simultaneously.
Now, many many people conclude from this that IT IS MEANINGLESS TO TALK ABOUT A "NOW" TO THE COSMOS AS A WHOLE. They assume that it means that for God THERE IS NO SEQUENCE. THE BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END of the cosmos must be experienced simultaneously. Relativity theory is thus used to "prove" the classic view of God's timelessness. Hence people who hold that God faces a partly open future are viewed as a) limiting God and b) being ignorant of relativity theory (as a recent letter to the editor of Christianity today charged). I have seen this objection to the Open View in print at least fifty or sixty times and heard it expressed in other venues at least a hundred times (but whose counting?).
Though my presentation in The God of the Possible was far too simplified (e.g. incorrect) I stand by my claim that Relativity Theory does not AT ALL suggest that the there is no "Now" to the cosmos. It merely specifies that only AN OMNIPRESENT OBSERVER would know when the "now" was. Please consider my subsequent argument carefully and give me feedback (esp. if you are knowledgable in this area).
Consider that everything Relativity Theory says about the relativity of time is said about THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FINITE EVENTS AND OBSERVERS. There is no absolute "time" when the lightening bolt strikes if we are speaking about the perceptions of the observer on the train or observer watching the train. BUT there IS an absolute "when" if we are talking about (say) the CLOCKSor OBSERVERS themselves. The woman on the train had a BEFORE and AFTER when she experienced the various lightening bolt, as did the man watching the train go by, as did the clocks that registered the hit.
Relativity Theory simply tells us why we can never coordinate these "befores" and 'afters." And the REASON (drum role please) is because WE OURSELVES ARE FINITE OBSERVERS. We can never transcend the limited, speed conditioned, location dependent perspective. FOR BEINGS SUCH AS US, there is no hope. We can't talk of an absolute NOW.
NOT SO FOR AN OMNIPRESENT BEING]
Suppose, just for the sake of argument  there is a God who can be INSIDE the clock at the front of the train, INSIDE the clock at the back of the Train, INSIDE the head of the observer on the train, and INSIDE the head of the observer watching the train (as well as inside the lightening bolts, etc.). Now, the "before" and "after" of each event and observer is experienced by God. And this means that God's experience has a 'before" and "after" that encompasses all 'befores" and "afters." It means there is a past, present and future for God and all things God knows. .
Let me argue it this way. The cosmos as a whole is constituted by the set of all its constitutents. Let's simplify things a bit by saying there are four things that comprise the universe.
clock 1 (c1)
clock2 (c2)
observer1 (o1)
observer2 (o2)
Now, we know there IS a "before" "now" and "after" for each constitutent (c1,c2,01,02.), even though NONE OF THEM can perfectlycorrelate their "before" "now" and "after" with anyone elses "before," "now" and "after." BUT God is present ON THE INSIDE of all four .He is perfectly contemporaneous with all four. In knowing all four, therefore, God knows the "before" "now" and "after" of each constitutent. And his experience coordinates the "before" "now" and "after" of each constituent.
Indeed, if each constitutent has a 'before" "now" and after," the universe as a whole MUST have a "before" "now" and after", for the universe is nothing over and above the four consitituents. Hence God, who knows the cosmos perfectly and experiences it "from the inside," must know and experience an absolute "before" "now" and "after." Think of it this way.
c1 (past) c1(now) c1 (future)
c2 (past) c2(now) c2 (future)
o1 (past) o1(now) o1 (future)
02 (past) o2(now) o2 (future)
Noe of the consistuents can experience each others past, now or future just as the other consistutent does. BUT God encompasses all of them, simultaneously. Hence, the "now" of each is HIS now and is coordinated with the "now" of every other constitutent.
This is basically the point which Milic Capek makes (as esteemed an authority in this field as anyone) when he argues:
It is true that there are no objective "Now" lines [in relativity theory]; yet it is not the whole truth, and this is precisely what makes the conclusion [that relativity theory requires a determinate future] wrong. Even a superficial inspection of relativistic time-space clearly shows that the past is separated form the future even more effectively than in classical physics: the whole four-dimensional region called "Elsewhere" (which could equally well be called "Elsewhen") is interposed between the causal past and causal future. It is this region which is differently divided by different observers and in which the "Now" lines do not coincide. But no "Now" line of mine can ever cut my own causal past nor my own causal future….The apparently mysterious character of Einstein’s universe disappears when we realize that this denial of absolute "Now" is [only] a denial of instantaneous actions and of instantaneous space…
From this Capeck concludes:
Although there is no absolute "Now," [he didn't need to, and shouldn't have, conceded this] there is such a thing as an absolute future. This is quite obvious for my own "Here-Now," which I actually experience; I can never perceive my own future event, since there are no backward causal actions, no effects preceding their causes. But more than that: my own causal future cannot be perceived by any other conceivable observer…. By the very definition of "Elsewhere," no causal actions from my own "Now"—a fortiori from my own future—can reach the observer unless they move with a velocity greater than that of light, which is excluded by relativity. Conversely, for the same reason, no event from the causal future of any observer located in the "Elsewhere" region can reach my own "Here-Now." Consequently, future events are intrinsically unobservable… M. Capeck, "The Unreality and Indeterminacy of the Future in the Light of Contemporary Physics," in Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time, pp. 306-07. See idem., The Concepts of Space and Time. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 22 (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1976). Take a look at Coveney and Highfield, Arrow of Time, ch.3, "How Time Defeated Einstein," pp. 70-107, who argue that there is a flaw in Einstein’s formulation because he did not factor in the unidirectional flow of time. Another who argues against the "block universe" implications of Einstein’s theory are R. Gale, The Language of Time (New York: Humanities Press, 1968)
I rest my case
I think.
What do you ya'll think? come back at me.
I in particular wanted to issue a challenge to my collegue and good friend Dr. Paul EDDY to respond to this, since his main reason for resisting the open view has been his unwillingness to let go of what he mistakenly thinks is an implication of Einstein's theory of Relativity. Step up Ol Boy!!!! Lets play chess!!!!
Blessings to all
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul
Edited by - GregBoyd on 10/05/2001 09:26:55 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:25 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|